"Battlefield Manoeuvring - Why Dont We Do It? " Topic

The question is what Division commanders and above were concerned with and what they weren't because it was handled by the lower-level line officers. No one level would be made too complicated. Lots of thought went into the levels and who did what. It was all based on the KISS principle.

The problem of slow troops and incremental movement that causes the six hours of game play to come into combat. The solution to have your table-top armies in combat range certainly gets things going quickly, but most of the decisions that shapes that combat has already been made. It becomes a johnny-one-note event.

The question is how to provide those opportunities to maneuver, but quickly in game terms.

The question is what Division commanders and above were concerned with and what they weren't because it was handled by the lower-level line officers

That's is the question. Framing it to an earlier post, what level commander is the player supposed to be?

In most rule sets (on the assumption there are fewer Army Level games than any others) as a player you can be anything from Corps commander down to and including Regimental/Battalion commander. So it shouldn't be that hard to figure it out.

Bill, in previous posts you pointed out the limited discretion held by Regimental/Battalion commanders and in a different way Brigade commanders too.

While this is true it implies something different or additional to my original point.

Granted at the lowest level how/where you moved and in what formation may have been decided for you but if your orders or limited discretion required a formation change, there were implications for your unit and the higher formation to which it belongs.

The player level setting off these actions is one thing but my point is rules should reflect consequences below the decision point.

The question is what Division commanders and above were concerned with and what they weren't

It is if all you're aiming for is a command simulation exercise. In which case a computer game taking care of all that was "handled by lower-level line officers" may very well be more efficient.
From the OP and various responses, it would seem that some gamers are looking for both the command challenege and the period feel conveyed by specific manoeuvre restrictions. Including formations and formation changes among the effects of orders might be one way to achieve this?

Batailles de l'Ancien Régime 1740-1763 {BAR} has a Quick Reference sheet folded to 8.5"x11" so there are three pages of easily readable rules. Page four is our drill manual illustrating how to form column from line and line to column from several perspectives plus other maneuvers. It's easy to use and does not tax the mind of those interested in trying it.
-----
Der Alte Fritz and I are adapting BAR to Napoleonic Spain. There was no need to change the Drill Manual for it.
See some images here:
barnapoleon.blogspot.com
We do 1:10 but this does not matter for your ratio of miniatures to real soldiers.

See how the Light Cavalry Brigade came onto the field of battle and formed a column of squadrons to the right as time went by.
-----
For more information about BAR see
oldregimerules.com
-----
Respectfully,
Bill

Musketier wrote:

It is if all you're aiming for is a command simulation exercise. In which case a computer game taking care of all that was "handled by lower-level line officers" may very well be more efficient.

Not at all, particularly if you consider what division commanders and above were concerned with. While they might not be the ones deploying the infantry, they had to know which flank or the center they could deploy on--which is why you see orders to direct such things. For instance, Read all the orders to the CSA I Corps at Gettysburg for the second day. The directing brigade and which side of the division the brigade's regiments were to guide on, formed on the left etc. were identified.

During the SYW, such things were dictated by the army commander, every brigade and wing forming the same way. By the Napoleonic wars, such things became the pervue of corps and divisional commanders. During the SYW, line officers had very little to do other than keep the lines dressed and morale up. [See Duffy and Warfare in the Age of Reason] By the Napoleonic wars, it loosened up for division, brigade and sometimes even independent battalions, if so ordered.

Such things made a difference at the brigade, divisional and even corps level in moving troops and having them in the right place and the right time.

Fun, fun, fun. That's part of the puzzle for a Napoleonic commander. A computer couldn't do that and still make it a game.

From the OP and various responses, it would seem that some gamers are looking for both the command challenege and the period feel conveyed by specific manoeuvre restrictions. Including formations and formation changes among the effects of orders might be one way to achieve this?

I think so too. Part of the problem is that regardless of what you are commanding, you are still moving all the units. Bill's BAR game illustrates that, where he was commanding two forces and sending messages to himself.

Of course, the 200 foot general is with us. There are only two ways to counter that, and both are unattractive from a gaming point of view:

1. Game in separate rooms
2. Keep our nicely-painted miniatures off the table for most of the game, using hidden movement, blinds etc. far more than they are now, even with games such as the TooFatLardies brace of designs using blinds.

As players, we know too much, but we want to see everything that is happening on the table and of course, have to because we move everything. We want the detail of the magnificant charge by the 2nd Guards Regiment, something a commander might not see or ever hear about.

This desire to be at the grunt level AND the command level is really strong among miniature players. Volley & Bayonet is a classic example of this. Frank Chadwick designed what he called 'an army-level game.' However, 95% of the rules deal with combat tactics at the brigade level and lower. 5% deal will any command issues. If a miniature wargame actually focused primarily [95%] on army command issues, not only would it be a very unique game, it would look too much like a board game and probably be unpopular…

Granted at the lowest level how/where you moved and in what formation may have been decided for you but if your orders or limited discretion required a formation change, there were implications for your unit and the higher formation to which it belongs.

The player level setting off these actions is one thing but my point is rules should reflect consequences below the decision point.

Trajanus:
I agree. It is just a matter of identifying those consequences and how/why they were instigated.

For instance, on thing I have read in several French memiors is where an attacking line of columns comes under fire, one of the battalion commanders unilaterally deciding to go to line, forcing the brigade commander to either continue on without that battalion or form the rest of the brigade in line. That could be a result of fire.

Battalion commanders had some leeway. For instance, they could refuse a flank without orders, form square or when to move in support a battalion in the front line in some way if already given the combat mission of support.

Looking at it the other way, corps, divisional and even brigade commanders could and did move individual battalions around when it suited them, so having individual battalions represented in a corps level[the player's role] game certainly is reasonable.

Picking the level the player will represent is really the first step to determining what will be represented and how--and how much.

Coming to this late I know.

Like others who have posted on this thread I do enjoy wargaming in which I am required to actually decide upon and carry out the kind of manoeuvres that were carried out on a battalion or regimental level. The problem is that, as with any type of wargame, choosing to represent certain aspects of combat in a game means having to forgo or alter certain other aspects of combat.

There are two primary reasons for this, space and time. The lower the distance scale and the smaller the time increments each move depicts the greater the degree to which you can duplicate battalion and even company level manoeuvres. The tradeoff though is that the time and space wargamers can devote to a game are finite commodities. Low scale and smaller time increments means that you end up depicting battles of shorter duration.

*Hey Bill N.:

Mike Collins published just such a wargame: Grand Manoeuvre. It covers all those 'battalion and even company level manoeuvres' and does it well, with 4 minute turns, 22 yards to the centimeter. That's 15 turns to the hour.

The relationship between time and space can be represented in a number of ways on the table top besides turn phases and incriments of minutes per turn. How the passage of time is moderated in a simulation system is the backbone of the wargame.

Someone on this thread mentioned portraying the results of manoevres and formation changes instead of the process itself. That would be one way of doing it.

Some of the ways time can be processed in relation to time are:

Reverse the process and have space/distance determine how much time has passed--game boards divided up into areas based on time considerations moving in them. Time passes dependent on how far units move or what playing pieces/units do.

Have events determine how much time has passed. This is often done with CPs and and turn ending rolls or cards.

Have activities determine how much time has passed. Cards for different activities are used up, then so much time has passed.

Have players determine how much time has passed. Some games have players bid or decide how much time they will use in a 'turn' or phase.

Any combination of the different methods can be or has been used. Each approach can, like timed turns and phases have a number of expressions in game mechanics. Of course, that isn't the only ways.

Personally, 4 minute turns, particularly when they take more time than 4 minutes isn't something I find all that attractive, though I know of any number of gamers who do.

Bill

A couple of comments. First of all, gamers can agree to "telescope" turns when the troops are still out of firing range. If a turn is 1 minute when the troops close and are exchanging vollies or crossing bayonets, then the gamers can agree that turns can be 5 minutes or so when the forces are just within artillery range and all that has to be done is calculate long-range artillery casualties.

Second, I think the posters are meshing two separate concepts together. On one hand, there is the issue of how detailed the rules should be when dealing with battalion or company maneuvers. But on the other, there is the issue of maneuvering towards open flanks or defending positions in depth. Remember that the normal Napoleonic battlefield was almost as deep as it was wide and encompassed reserve formations, often pulled back out of artillery range.

So the issues involve the fact that the usual wargamers table is long and relatively narrow and allows only deployment in an extended line – sort of like Frederick the Great. And the usual table is usually not wide enough to allow open flanks and outflanking moves.

Bill,
My belated thanks for the mention here!
A number of things have kept me away from TMP recently – so my apologies for not thanking you sooner than this!

The 4 minute turn is really only my attempt to make things manageable in a game.

I think my starting point was the maximum time taken to change formation – not the easy ones, but the ones like forming line on the head of a column – the game turn needed to include these actions.
Also there was the "feel" of it and the spectacle of commands in units moving across the table… i like to see this actually happening in a game sure enough!
I didn`t want movement rates to be too sluggish (making for longer games) …nor did I want exaggerated movement rates for the sake of a faster game with players confused about what happens when commands/units are accidentally bumping into one another.

4 minutes does seem like a short turn, but in that short time things COULD happen on a tactical level which MIGHT have had grand-tactical consequences.

This desire would explain alot of reenactments where the British line adopts attack in line of column to accomodate for extreme lack of forces on United States 1812 units/Using inferior tactics to facilitate a side show attempting to reproduce a bad but a hopelesly tainted image.Manoeuvre cards are a waste of time,fire/cover and speed of command decision/execution no micromanagement needed.

Mike:

You're welcome. You have done a remarkable job with your rules. And yes, that 4 minute turn is big design decision in what you want to portray. I completely understand why you made it.

4 minutes does seem like a short turn, but in that short time things COULD happen on a tactical level which MIGHT have had grand-tactical consequences.

Understood. "The want of a nail…" That is one of the attractions of, and problems with, Napoleonic battle, not only can little things have big consequences, but the army commander can and did operate at lower levels when he chose.

When you get into the FPW through WWII, battles are so massive, nails can be lost all over the place and not have a significant impact on the outcome.

Happy New Year.